Helena Chew and Martin Weinbaum, eds. The London Eyre
of 1244, London Record Society, vol.6 (1970), 21.

Original language:

Latin

Location:

London

Date:

1231

TRANSLATION

In the same year [1231] ... on
13 January, it came about that Robert de Kingestone, a servant of
Andrew Bukerel, struck Alice's son Adam
on the head with an axe, resulting in his death the following day.
Coming to the place where Adam had been attacked, Alice seized Robert
and she and her neighbours brought him to the house of John, beadle of
the ward at that time, so that he could be kept in custody until
the following day. She delivered him to the beadle, who received him
but afterwards allowed him to escape.
Because this took place during the day, and
hue-and-cry was raised so that
all the neighbours and everyone living in the ward of
Joce fitz Peter, alderman at that
time, were made fully aware of what had gone on, yet the wrongdoer
was not detained after his capture, they are to be subject to judgement.
When the beadle comes [before the
justices] he is committed into the sheriffs' custody. Robert
was in frankpledge in St. Pancras' parish, in the county of Middlesex.
So the sheriff of Middlesex is instructed to make enquiry among
his frankpledge and concerning his possessions, and to arrange
to have him exacted and outlawed in
the county court. Since the mayor and citizens testify that Robert
was captured and taken to John the beadle's house at a time when he was
not there, John is exonerated. Robert had no belongings. The chamberlain,
the sheriffs, and the [ward] alderman
knew nothing of this affair, nor was Robert in frankpledge or
[resident] of the ward, for he was
an outsider; therefore nothing [is due from
them by way of fine]. Nothing from Andrew Bukerel, to whose
household he belonged, since Andrew is dead.

DISCUSSION

This was one of a number of old crimes reviewed by the king's justices
in eyre, authorized to examine various types of offences infringing
royal laws. There had been no previous eyre in London since 1226.
Consequently, in the case of the older crimes, many of the accused were
no longer to be found, or had died in prison, while many of the witnesses
(including neighbours, who were expected to be in the know) had likewise
died. The account of the case is a summary of key developments in
the proceedings. These accounts, and possibly the proceedings themselves,
showed far less interest in the motives for crimes  something
hard to arrive at anyway in the frequent absence of victim (usually dead)
and accused (usually disappeared)  than in which parties could
be fined or what possessions of the accused or deodands (instruments
by which a crime was committed, forfeit to the crown) could be
confiscated.

There are several instances here indicative of the important role of
private citizens, individually or collectively, in bringing wrongdoers
to justice. Alice attempts a citizen's arrest on the attacker of her
son, and summons the neighbourhood to her assistance  and
to witness the results of the crime (so that later in court they can
assist with Robert's conviction)  by raising hue-and-cry.
This was probably an obligation at first, although subject to abuse 
some citizens raising the hue at the slightest provocation; at the
1276 eyre, the London authorities were claiming that raising hue-and-cry
and pursuing criminals was optional for a neighbourhood, and failure
to do so should not result in a fine.

In 1231, however, the neighbours take responsibility for escorting Robert
to where he can be secured until Adam's fate is determined. The
inhabitants of the ward are collectively blamed for Robert's escape 
since they cannot claim ignorance, they must accept responsibility and
face a fine. There are numerous other cases among the London eyre
records of the 13th century in which the community of a ward is fined
for failing to report something suspicious or being ignorant of
activities within ward boundaries.

Finally, reference is made to Robert's frankpledge, a group of friends
or neighbours which has some responsibility for knowing the whereabouts
of its members and providing mutual guarantees of good behaviour.
Frankpledges were often fined by the 1244 eyre for failing in their
duty. In this case Robert must have been associated with extra-mural
property held by Bukerel since he belonged to Bukerel's household but
was not a London resident.

By contrast, the city authorities take care to avoid any risk of being
fined themselves, by arguing that Robert was not a citizen and therefore
they could not be held responsible for his actions.

NOTES

"Andrew Bukerel"
A member of one of the most prominent merchant families of the city,
specializing in the pepper trade. His father had served as sheriff,
and Andrew and two brothers held aldermannic office in the city. This
crime of his servant, in which Bukerel seems in no way implicated did
not hurt his social status, for he was elected mayor soon after and
held the office for several years until his death in 1237.

"allowed him to escape"
The Latin literally reads "permitted him to depart". Dr. Chew's
translation "let him go" would suggest a deliberate act on
the beadle's part, but his subsequent exoneration (together
with Robert's apparent disappearance) suggests more that Robert was
not properly secured in the beadle's absence.

"Joce fitz Peter"
Alderman of Farringdon ward.

"exacted"
Exaction, or exigent, was a preliminary to outlawry: in cases where
the accused could not be found, proclamation had to be made in court
ordering the accused to surrender to justice. In London such
proclamation had to be made at three successive husting sessions
before (assuming failure to appear) the accused could be outlawed at
the folkmoot; unless the accused were a non-Londoner, in which case
the exaction took place at four sessions, to give more time for
the accused to turn himself in.